Re: Gadget Poll

Here is one for the multi-engine planes. Devise and implement a microprocessor based system that would sync multi-engines on the plane and
keep them sync'ed. If one of the engines on a four engine died, the system would balance by killing the corresponding engine on the other side. If on a twin, one engine died, the system would kill the other before the snap to death. There are other cases that could be handled by the processor but here is some to get started.
Art

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OR: speed control for multi brushless to do the same thing. mk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

killing the corresponding engine on the other side. If on a twin, one engine died, the system would kill the other before the snap to death.
Or, maybe the system could crank in enough control surface correction to maintain stable flight. That could be programmed to occur faster than a thumb might react and not only avoid the snap of death, but the controlled crash dead stick landing.
Charlie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Unless I am having a senior moment and do not remember correctly..Jomar has a unit that does that...or the fellow that did the original designsJomar bought out..did have a circuit that did exactly what you want...Some back issues of RCM would have it and I cannot for the life of me remember what the man'sname was that designed that and other neat gadgets.. Frank Schwartz slightly dazed in Hendersonville, TN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have the orig. text and schematic and scans that I can email if interested
Hugh

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've got a Pica duellist in the box and a plan set for a Mosquito.
Thanks!
                Marty

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oho, Red. I get what you're talkin' about now. A Tx that'll shut off after several minutes of non-use. Makes perfect sense now. (A little slow on the uptake:-) Bill(oc)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hugh: Do you think you could email me a copy of the schematic and article for that engine synchronizer? This is exactly the problem that bothers me about twin engine projects. Now if we could develop one that automatically kicks in the appropriate rudder to compensate for the engine out condition, we'd have ourselves the idea goodie-                 Thanks- Paul             please remove the "dontSPAMme."             from my address to reply
Hugh Prescott wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul, The first part of that should be easy. Measure the output of a digital tach and when it goes to zero swing the rudder to the correct side. The real question is how much rudder?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Six_O'Clock_High@Target_Lock.Guns says...

This is where having feedback to the ground would be really helpful, as you could get an alarm signal from the transmitter. I'd go for a scheme that measures differential rpm's and applies the appropriate rudder. This would allow for an engine that sags or doesn't wind up when you hit the throttle.
Another alternative, or use in conjunction with rudder coupling, would be to retard the fast engine to match the slow engine. The pilot could cycle the throttle stick to return power, knowing what he's getting into, much like arming an ESC.
As for how to calibrate all this, I'd use a separate channel for the second engine and slave it to the throttle. Pushing the throttle advances both, while turning down the other proportional channel would retard the second engine. You can then figure out how much rudder you need from 12 mistakes high, give or take a mistake.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd like the e-mail information, too.
        Thanks.
                Marty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I thought these products were on the market already:
Flight dataloggers? Real-time telemetry (engine temp, rpm, altitude, fuel gage)? Video transmission? Frequency scanner to see if anyone is using your channel?
So are you interested in something that isn't available now. How about a variable speed prop for glow and gas? (that's a challenge) How about an automatic engine mixture control to prevent over lean or over rich flights? A true inertial guidance system with programmable maneuvers?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How about a device to go in your transmitter that would shut it down if the sticks were not moved in a certain time (programmable). It would turn on again as soon as a stick was moved.
Red S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
From Red S.:

Yikes! You mean shut off the carrier? What'll the Rx do when it sees no carrier? Seems like you'd need a mated fail-safe Rx for such a setup. Much as i hate to agree with D.H. on anything, a dedicated RC-band spectrum analyzer would be one of the handiest possible gadgets for the field. Bill(oc)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bellsouth.net says...

So, you turn in the frequency pin. Whip out the spray, hose your baby down, and break out the towels. Got her all cleaned up and packed away, so you grab your transmitter as someone is taxiing his quarter scale out of the pits. Care to guess what happens next?
What is the use of the turn it back on portion of the equation? I can see the auto turn off feature as a great idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@bellsouth.net says... | > How about a device to go in your transmitter that would shut it down if the | > sticks were not moved in a certain time (programmable). It would turn on | > again as soon as a stick was moved. | > | So, you turn in the frequency pin. Whip out the spray, hose your baby | down, and break out the towels. Got her all cleaned up and packed away, | so you grab your transmitter as someone is taxiing his quarter scale out | of the pits. Care to guess what happens next?
Pretty much the same thing that may have happened if your radio didn't have a auto turn off feature. As long as the pilot's signal is stronger than your signal, his plane has a good chance of not going out of control. But the reletive strengths could certainly change mid-flight ...
| What is the use of the turn it back on portion of the equation? I can | see the auto turn off feature as a great idea.
One fun-fly contest idea is to see who can fly their plane the longest without touching any controls at all. And glider pilots know to trim their planes properly and not touch anything when looking for thermals. It could be very bad for your transmitter to just turn itself off during a flight.
Though a long enough delay (15-30 minutes?) would probably alleviate those concerns.
To be fair though, this isn't a good idea for a gadget to add onto a transmitter. Instead, it's a good idea for a feature to add to a transmitter when you're building it.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com Speed thrills.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wouldn't simply adding a flashing LED to signal the xmitter is on be better? Cheaper, no risk, no hassles etc
David
Doug McLaren wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good, but I don't think a flashing LED, particularly in a high light environment would be as good as an audible alarm.
Red S.
message

better?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree with your thoughts Red, but in suggesting the LED I was thinking of something an owner could add to their xmitter themselves - while the audio alarm would be good/better/as well as, some guys/girls might find it a bit daunting to build and install, compared to simply drilling a hole and wiring a flashing LED with series resistor.
The advantage of the flashing LED is that it can be on all the time, whereas an audio signal needs detection circuitry to check the condition of the sticks etc.
David
Red Scholefield wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The turn off feature would be programmable at least to the extent were it would not turn on unless the switch was turned off and then on again, or it would be turned on if sticks were moved.
One of the main advantages is to shut the transmitter down if the switch is left accidentally on, either at home on the work bench or at the field in the impound or in transit to the field.
My option would be to require that the transmitter switch be turned off then on again before you could transmit. Others may have different needs that they could select in the programming.
I discussed this concept with the Futaba people at Toledo several years ago (since computer radios came on the scene) and got a blank stare.
Red S.
says...

the
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.